Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Free, read-only.' More valuably, it discloses data semantics beyond the annotations: what the paused state means depending on remaining credits and how to interpret a widely-missed question. It stops short of stating pagination or permission requirements, but adds genuine behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with what the results contain before the interpretive notes. The metric enumeration earns its place given there is no output schema, though the closing interpretation sentences are somewhat loosely appended rather than tightly organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so thoroughly: state (live/paused/ended), started/answered/correct/out-of-tries/second-try counts, per-question performance, and credits billed. For a single-quiz read-only tool this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the sole quiz_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (create_watch_quiz / boost_post's watch_quiz.campaign_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Results of one of the user's watch quizzes,' and clarifies the quiz may originate here, in the web app, or on a boost, which routes the agent relative to create_watch_quiz and boost_post. An agent can distinguish this from get_campaign_results without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear retrieval context and interpretive guidance ('a question most viewers miss is usually ambiguous — say so'; 'paused with credits left means the user paused it; otherwise the balance ran out'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling results tools (get_campaign_results, get_content_campaign_results), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.